Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

ATP Bioluminescence system comparison.


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 GIBBSG

GIBBSG

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • New Zealand
    New Zealand

Posted 30 November 2009 - 02:28 AM

Hi I'm looking into comparing bioluminescence to an Aerobic plate count method for sanitation effectiveness evaluation, has anybody used the ATP methods, and if so what do they think? Currently I'm looking at two systems and need to choose between them, these are the Charm NovaLum system and the Hygiena SystemSURE Plus, the latter is significantly cheaper, has anyone had any experience with these?



#2 AS NUR

AS NUR

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 582 posts
  • 57 thanks
9
Neutral

  • Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:east java, indonesia

Posted 01 December 2009 - 12:42 AM

dear Gibbsg..

IMEX.. ATP usefull if you need fast result (1 minute), the basic principallof ATP bioluminescence is measure ATP in your equipment, ATP camefrom Micro or from the other material such as meat or protein etc.. ATP have 2 system measurement, they are Qualitative system, that only give the result yes or no for cleanliness and Quantitative system that give us a number and the unit of measurement is RLU (Relative Light Unit).

ATP can't compare with APC, because APC measure microorganisme actually, and atp didn't....

I am using ATP to verify effectiveness cleaning process.. thats only need 1 minute to get the result..

And for the both system that you state..can you give me the clearly explanation on that system..

rgds

AS Nur



#3 Jean

Jean

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 429 posts
  • 7 thanks
4
Neutral

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Female

Posted 01 December 2009 - 06:29 AM

ATP is a nucleotide which is present in all living things. I agree with As Nur. Bioluminescence test is a qualitative and by getting a positive does not necessarily indicate it is due to the presence of microbes alone. Any debris or vegetative matter can again get the test as positive. APC gives a clear indication of the number (quantitative) of microorganisms present in the sample.We use the ATP testing swabs for verifying the cleanliness.
Best regards,

J

Only the curious will learn and only the resolute overcome the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always excited me more than the intelligence quotient. Eugene S Wilson

#4 GIBBSG

GIBBSG

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • New Zealand
    New Zealand

Posted 02 December 2009 - 10:08 AM

Ok both are small handheld units that use disposable swabs and give readings in RLU's, I'm supposed to come up with a way that these can be used to determine if cleaning has been effective in a fish processing chain. I was intending to do side by side testing of bacterial suspensions for statistical analysis, and to create a standard curve. Then I'm supposed to go to the plant and do duplicate swabs for both methods before and after cleaning. Therefore I should be able to produce a statistical analysis of the values such that I can say that a reading of X RLU is indicative of an appropriate level of sanitation, and is comparable to a APC of Y.
It appears that the company wants a quick spot check, to be used in parallel with APC, but which is significantly faster, so they can tell if an area needs further cleaning.



#5 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,453 posts
  • 5166 thanks
1,155
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 02 December 2009 - 10:37 PM

Dear GibbSG,

THere is at least one link (or attachment) here (somewhere) to a quite detailed commercial document detailing the design and application of an APC/ATP comparison including the practical results (as already noted, one immediate difficulty is obtaining a general relationship). I know it's here because I remember being impressed and putting it in (you might try searching for ATP and filtering by my name though one problem is that the search engine may ignore 3-letter words, :dunno: ). No statistical analysis was done however, my guess is that this might be found if you search around the AOAC approval for any commercial ATP devices since it is normally required to publish the validation details in the associated journal (JAOAC). Some of the commercial people also do it if the data looks impressive enough.

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#6 AS NUR

AS NUR

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 582 posts
  • 57 thanks
9
Neutral

  • Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:east java, indonesia

Posted 03 December 2009 - 12:51 AM

Therefore I should be able to produce a statistical analysis of the values such that I can say that a reading of X RLU is indicative of an appropriate level of sanitation, and is comparable to a APC of Y.
It appears that the company wants a quick spot check, to be used in parallel with APC, but which is significantly faster, so they can tell if an area needs further cleaning.


Dear GIBBSG..

It's dificult to find correlation between ATP and APC, because If in your line contain ATP from the other source then Micro such as ATP from Meat or any protein source in your line, its not actual RLU from micro.. so.. its different type of measurement...

IMEX.. we just make standard for our cleanliness..we adjust std max 200 rlu, thats data came from std cleanliness for dairy line.. (FYI i am using HYlite from Merck)...
IMO. you don't need to make correlation between ATP and APC, you just make std RLU for your clealines

rgds

AS NUr

#7 Anne Z

Anne Z

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 86 posts
  • 14 thanks
3
Neutral

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands

Posted 03 December 2009 - 04:01 PM

We use the ATP test to controle the effect of the tankcleaning station. We're using the Hygiena SystemSURE II. It is easy to use and you don't have to wait for the results. There are different snaps of surface testing but also for water testing. I'm not sure if the aqua snaps work in the SystemSURE II as we only test the surface. But incase you want to test water as well it's worth looking into.



#8 Jamima68

Jamima68

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral

  • New Zealand
    New Zealand

Posted 03 December 2009 - 07:25 PM

Hey,

We are a dairy plant and use the Charm NovaLum for checking CIP cleanliness before start up. It's a great machine, has varied uses (you can get swabs for doing CIP water returns, Allergens etc). We set our URL level at 300 and SOP is to re CIP equipment/lines if the test fails. Charm has some great computer software with it that helps in graphing and trending results for various equipment and factory areas. Sorry I haven't heard of the other machine you mention.

I agree with everyone else re comparison with APC that you cannot directly correlate the data, its like comparing apples and oranges.

Good Luck
J9 :thumbup:



#9 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,453 posts
  • 5166 thanks
1,155
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 03 December 2009 - 10:00 PM

Dear Gibbsg,

Here are two, I guess, fairly expert appraisals of ATP in general and also regarding plate count correlations (2006, current). As per other posts, it will surely depend on the specific situation.


http://www.scielo.br...ipt=sci_arttext

http://www.foodquali...006_current.htm


It is not difficult to find operational references which claim either positive or negative correlations. For example, here is a fairly convincing (?) positive one although not exactly a cleaning application.

Attached File  ATP___Product_Validation_Latex_Polymer_Emulsions_QGOM.pdf   761.94KB   165 downloads

I noticed this website comment for the SystemSure instrument –

Conduct ATP Hygiene Monitoring tests at each location, using 5-10 test replicates


Somewhat optimistic I fear. Hopefully not an indication of the typical scatter. :biggrin:

Rgds / Charles.C

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#10 GIBBSG

GIBBSG

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • New Zealand
    New Zealand

Posted 03 December 2009 - 10:49 PM

Hi all, thank you for your input, so far I've only got feedback from one manufactureer, the more expensive Charm one, but they do have a distributor here in NZ so they may be better for that reason alone. I should perhaps explain that the first couple of things I'm doing, standard curve and levels of detection, are primerily for the research project side, they will look good for that. For the real work, that is the onsight evaluation, I'm going to (after checking the water and saitizer for interferance) do a correlation on the CHANGE in RLU and APC between pre and post cleaning, a strong correlation would indicate that its a relatively good estimation of cleanileness. I should also be able to estimate (with corrections for water etc) what can be considered an adquate reading of RLU's to indicate sufficient cleaning for this situation.



Thanked by 1 Member:

#11 martin E

martin E

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 3 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 04 December 2009 - 12:53 PM

Hi everyone
My name is Martin Easter from Hygiena International and I have many years of industrial experience with ATP hygiene monitoring as both a user and a developer of the technology. You are all correct in that ATP and plate counts are different methods that measure different things and give different information. It like comparing apple and oranges. It is best to accept the ATP hygiene test for what it is i.e. a cleaning verification test, and a sensitive test for product residue that should have been removed by effective cleaning.
The ATP technology is not intended to be used as a replacement for the microbiology test, and it is not intended to be a precise method for the determination of ATP content. There are many factor that affect this biological assay and as such it has a similar variability to other biological test e.g. plate counts with CV of 30% or more.

The above has not stopped several authors trying to correlate ATP hygiene monitoring results with plate counts and some have been more successful than others.

The systemSURE is the most sensitive and repeatable ATP system which has been shown in a number of independent collaborative stuidies.

I have written several review articles in Food Magazine in Europe ; see www.foodmagazine.eu.com issue 12, Autumn 2008; Issue 3, 2009 and including issues on detergents in issue 2, 2009. I have tried to attach here Pdf copies for your info.

Hygiena is also adding new test application in the New Year which will show another major advance and application of its bioluminescence technology that is also based on its low cost robust instrument platform.

Attached Files



Thanked by 3 Members:

#12 cazyncymru

cazyncymru

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • Banned
  • 1,604 posts
  • 340 thanks
126
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 December 2009 - 06:43 PM

Hi Martin

I've used both the hygiena system and the biotrace system for ATP swabbing, and also for rinse waters.

The advantage that you have over Biotrace (apart from costs) is that 1 swab does all.

I'd be happy to endorse the Hygiena system, it is very easy to use.

caz x



#13 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,383 posts
  • 1013 thanks
283
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 10 December 2009 - 03:21 AM

Hi everyone
My name is Martin Easter from Hygiena International and I have many years of industrial experience with ATP hygiene monitoring as both a user and a developer of the technology. You are all correct in that ATP and plate counts are different methods that measure different things and give different information. It like comparing apple and oranges. It is best to accept the ATP hygiene test for what it is i.e. a cleaning verification test, and a sensitive test for product residue that should have been removed by effective cleaning.
The ATP technology is not intended to be used as a replacement for the microbiology test, and it is not intended to be a precise method for the determination of ATP content. There are many factor that affect this biological assay and as such it has a similar variability to other biological test e.g. plate counts with CV of 30% or more.


Hi Martin

I have used ATP technology since the early 90's

A couple of points:

Are you sure it is not intended to be a precise method for determination of ATP content? Please explain.

For product testing I have used ATP testing as a direct replacement (With some micro testing as verification) so I think you are underselling the technology here.

Kind regards,

Tony :smile:

Edited by Tony-C, 17 November 2011 - 03:16 PM.


#14 Biotek

Biotek

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 10 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 17 November 2011 - 08:22 AM

At the factory we're utilizing Hygiena ATP SystemSure Plus and Ultrasnaps to verify ozonated water's disinfection efficacy on surfaces (mainly on Stainless steel surface) for internal use.
As feedback, respond time is around 30 seconds that we find this handhled unit very pratical. There are other snaps i've seen at their website but so far we've only used Ultrasnap with the device.





#15 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,383 posts
  • 1013 thanks
283
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 17 November 2011 - 03:24 PM

:wtg:

Like to hear from members with experience of product testing using ATP systems.

Regards,

Tony

#16 xylough

xylough

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 149 posts
  • 149 thanks
29
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SanFrancisco Bay Area (Oakland, Lake Merritt)
  • Interests:"Foodie" stuff, dogs, family, horticulture, natural sciences

Posted 19 March 2015 - 10:23 PM

I have recent experience with the CHARM Sciences LUM T for both sanitation verification and allergen (Alergenie) verification. The sanitation swabs are shelf labile now as compared to 4 years ago when I first purchased one for another facility. The software is highly customizable for sites, equipment, randomization, etc. The most important task is to validate the allergen aspect by making standardized serial dilutions of all the allergens you use and the allergen combinations you use. For me it is various marinades and meat rubs. Then test the unit with split samples of the serial dilutions. Send the serial dilutions to FARRP for allergen assays. If your ZERO matches their ZERO then you have an equivalency between the assay and the relative light unit numbers output by the unit.

If  Ecolab is your chemical company, they provide the unit and supplies at a nice price. My particular rep. from CHARM was top-notch.



#17 ishan3105

ishan3105

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 28 November 2016 - 08:29 AM

You can first go through about ATP Bioluminescence here - http://www.hospitali...cence-overview/



#18 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,453 posts
  • 5166 thanks
1,155
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 28 November 2016 - 09:47 AM

You can first go through about ATP Bioluminescence here - http://www.hospitali...cence-overview/

 

Hi Ishan,

 

Thks for the link but please note that some of the info. is not appropriate to food manufacturing, eg - 

 

(1) based on the majority of ATP food literature, the first statement regarding correlation would probably be considered wrong/unvalidatable.

(2) as stated, ATP cannot specifically identify micro species so the comment regarding rapid help for detection in outbreaks seems a little strange. Perhaps they meant control of cleanliness 


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users